Man sued over photos of public art on Seattle street

[jgrindal]

So, what's your take on this?


Man sued over photos of public art on Seattle street | KOMO News - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional

[tukaniray]

Wow ... that's a tough one.

But yeah ... reading the article ... lots of people are taking photos of the art in public.

So why sue a person who just took a photo of them? Did Mike Hipple not give credit to Jack Mackie? I don't see why public art is such a crime to take photos of.

I mean people take photos of art all the over world that are out in the public and no one gets sued for it. This is a stupid case from my point of view.

-Ray-

[prncfarquad]

I don't see how his complaint would hold water but I am no legal eagle either..just seems silly to me...but if he has a copyright?

If he is in the right then I would think anyone who did an engagement, portrait, or baby session that had the steps in them would be infringing on his rights too

[Wil_Bloodworth]

That's stupid. If you don't want people to take photos of something... don't put it in public.

- Wil

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by ParkImaging

That's stupid. If you don't want people to take photos of something... don't put it in public.

- Wil

Exactly my thought as well.

[sldi]

So if a photo you shoot is hanging in a public space and someone takes a photo of it, AND earns MONEY from the sale of that photo, would that not be cause for a copyright suit?

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by sldi

So if a photo you shoot is hanging in a public space and someone takes a photo of it, AND earns MONEY from the sale of that photo, would that not be cause for a copyright suit?

A copyright attorney would be the best one to ask. I see the possibility of not winning a lawsuit in such a case, but given the strange rulings that have come out of our courts lately in other types of cases, I'm not dismissing anything.

[shutterfire]

Good grief: Glad that the statue of liberty, grand central station and numerous sites all over the world are not copyrighted. Hmmmm I smell an investment opportunity

[jeffkohn]

Just because art is on display in public doesn't mean there is no copyright. It's the same thing for sculptures.

The question would be whether the pictures constitute fair use. If he specifically photographed the sculptures (or whatever you want to call the dance steps), and then tried to sell those images or otherwise profit from them, the dance-step guy may have a pretty strong case.

On the other hand, if the photographer was taking pictures of larger scenes that the dance steps happen to be part of, then it may not be so clear-cut. The more "incidental" the inclusion of the dance steps, the weaker the claim of copyright violation would be.

[pavi]

Should not the title be "Man sued for selling photos of public art on Seattle street"?

[Dobick]

From the way that the article is written, it sounds as if the photos in question are of the work as a whole (speculation on my part is that he took photos of each of the dance stations and issued them as a set)

This does not seem all that cut and dried, and it sounds also like the artist is legitimately concerned about protecting his intellectual property. It seems a very simple and elegant concept that could easily lead to future license agreements in other parks, so he does have a vested financial interest to protect (especially due to the non-complicated way this art is implemented)

Truly what other recourse does the original artist have but to bring this before a judge to get a ruling?

[chenology]

true, would be a more legit case if he were selling the photos of the artwork. otherwise there is no case. public art is public domain and falls under fair use.

[David_3]

I think it's a dangling participle.

[AllenAyres]

Originally Posted by shutterfire

Good grief: Glad that the statue of liberty, grand central station and numerous sites all over the world are not copyrighted. Hmmmm I smell an investment opportunity

The Eiffel Tower's night lights are copyrighted and they do issue take-down demands for those who post them on commercial/pro sites.

Eiffel Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[janikphoto]

This story leaves a LOT of details unanswered. There is a mention of the photog's agency removing and destroying the images, so I assume these were available in a stock agency maybe? I could see a copyright issue if the images were definitely focused on the dance steps as the subject and this photog was then trying to sell the images commercially. That seems to be the only scenario that makes sense and could warrant a law suite, but again... the story is too vague regarding the important details for us to know for sure.